An evolution question I've often wondered about.

[appolose]

highwaystar101 said:

appolose said:

highwaystar101 said:

White holes are hypothetical, we have little/no evidence to support or deny them yet I'm afraid.

...

Anyway, that point aside. About the time period you gave, "caught in the event horizon for billions of years". I'm assuming you are referring too an idea held by old Earth creationists in that case? The argument wouldn't work in the case of young Earth creationists as it requires extensive time periods. Especially as a white hole hypothetically causes both time reversal and matter ejection.

If the Earth was subjected to time reversal from a white hole whilst the rest of the Universe went along at a normal pace, I would assume that if it was anything like a black hole the the time reversal would be extremely extended and we wouldn't really feel the effects, kinda like how time extends to become almost infinite past the event horizon of a black hole. So allowing ample time for light to reach is an argument I don't think I can accept I'm afraid.

But all that wouldn't matter if we were caught in the event horizon of a white hole that was ejecting matter. I would think we would be either ejected from the white holes event horizon immediately or the solar system would be obliterated.

However, as all of this is hypothetical, no-one can be certain.

 

It's actually a young-Earth idea (although, it doesn't have to be exclusively so):  While it allows for the universe to be billions of years old, it still maintains that the Earth is only several thousand.

I'm not sure I understand your objection about the effects of time reversal.  If I've understood the idea correctly, it's that: 

a) Time slowed down dramatically on Earth

b) The rest of the univers carried on for billions of years while Earth was in this time freeze, so light eventually came to the perpetually young-Earth.

Perhaps that will clear up the objection, if it isn't based on something else I've missed.

I'll provide a link to a more detailed (and accurate) presentation of this hypothesis in a bit.

 

This idea doesn't sit well with me at all for several reasons...

1) White holes are completely hypothetical, we have no evidence to either support or deny their existence.

2) It makes the assumption that Earth has passed through the event horizon of a white hole, I idea which is based on no evidence whatsoever.

3) If we somehow passed though the event horizon of a white hole I would imagine that the solar system would have been obliterated, or at least changed to be unrecognisable from other solar systems.

4) It does not support young Earth creationism because it suggests that the Earth was formed billions of years ago, and even though it's time would be somehow distorted, it still existed in the Universe billions of years ago. YEC has to assert it did not exist billions of years ago by definition.

5) If the Earth's time path was distorted so it only worked for thousands of years instead of billions and "froze"; Then the Earth's geology would not be billions of years old. As time around the Earth is distorted, so are all of it's functions. A distortion of time to alter it's time path to thousands of years old would not work, we would still have a 6,000 year old Earth made of molten rock.

6) If all other bodies in the Universe are accepted as being billions of years old, then why is it so difficult to accept Earth as being billions of years old too?

 

I know I thought of another one, but I've forgot lol.

Oh, ok. I see...

I agree with you one 1 and 2 (as far as I know, at least): this idea is, thus far, just an idea (although, the main person that proposed, Russell Humphrey, claims, I think, to have have made some succesful predictions from the model).  No creationists actually accept it as gospel  just as a possible solution.

For 3, perhaps so, yes, although I imagine those effects are taken into account in the idea (still trying to find a good link to it).

For 4, Perhaps you suggest the answer to that in 5, but, in any case, YEC asserts that the Earth is only about 6000 years old, and, in this scenario, it technically is.  That is, the Earth does not have billions of years of time it endured, despite the fact that everything else around it did.

For 5, YEC's don't think the Earth started as molten rock.

For 6, the only reason YEC's propose a Young Earth in the first place is because we think it is Biblically stated as such.  Additionally, there are other theological problems that arise in an Old-Earth view in Christianity.